Case law

Hanson v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

156 Or. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1998

Mueller v. PSRB, 325 Or 332, 339 , 937 P2d 1028 (1997). … However, in Osborn v.

Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

179 Or. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2002

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 175 Or App 345 , 27 P3d 1100 (2001). … Oregon Health Care Assn. v. Health Div., 329 Or 480, 491 , 992 P2d 434 (1999); see also Skeen v.

Howard v. State Board of Parole

105 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1991

B, Instr. 2, § (A); West v. Board of Parole, 86 Or App 616, 618-19 , 739 P2d 1096 (1987). … Miller v. Florida, supra, 482 US at 433 (quoting Hopt v. Utah, 110 US 574, 590 , 4 S Ct 202 , 28 L Ed 262 (1884)). Williams v.

Denham v. State Board of Parole

106 Or. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 1991

The time within which to file a petition for judicial review was 60 days from the date of the original Board order, Cruz v. Board of Parole, 53 Or App 263, 266 , 631 P2d 829 , rev den 291 Or 893 (1981); see Walker v. … Board of Parole, 106 Or App 238 , 806 P2d 1165 (1991), unless an inmate requested and was granted administrative review, whether or not relief was eventually granted. Esperum v.

Woolstrum v. Board of Parole

89 Or. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 1988

See State v. Pruett, 37 Or App 183 , 586 P2d 800 (1978); State v. Drummond, 6 Or App 558 , 489 P2d 958 (1971). He relies on Cannon v. Gladden, 203 Or 629 , 281 P2d 233 (1955), and State v. … Since the briefs in this case were filed, we have pointed out that the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act apply to the Board of Parole. ORS 183.413(2); Munson v.

Simon v. Board of County Commissioners

91 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1988

Simon v. Board of Co. Comm. of Marion Co., 84 Or App 311 , 733 P2d 901 (1987). … This case is unlike Doughton v.

Addicks v. State Board of Parole

63 Or. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 1983

Under the pre-1977 discretionary system, an inmate was given a parole hearing date, but no firm date for release was set, and the hearing date could be changed at the Board’s discretion. As pointed out in Bailleaux v. … Petitioner elected in writing to have his parole considered under the pre-1977 discretionary system. 2 In Harris v.

Morgan v. Board of Parole

111 Or. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1992

Hodges v. Board of Parole

111 Or. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1992

McKenzie v. Board of Parole

110 Or. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 1992

Petitioner appeals an order of the Board of Parole setting his parole release date. He contends that the Board failed to follow its administrative rules. … At the hearing, the Board imposed two consecutive 6-month terms for petitioner’s remaining two convictions on the basis of petitioner’s Board matrix.

Campbell v. Board of County Commissioners

107 Or. App. 611 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

As we said recently in Sauvie Island Agricultural v. … In Mehring v.

Triplett v. Board of Social Protection

19 Or. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1974

Drago v. Public Welfare Division, 18 Or App 507 , 525 P2d 1065 (1974); Bunting v. … Dept. v.

Barrett v. Board of Parole

Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2024

Affirmed. 464 Barrett v. Board of Parole ORTEGA, P. J. … The board’s authority to sum consecutive prison terms is therefore, at minimum, “affected by” or “modified by” ORS 144.079. See Vasquez v.

Osborn v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

135 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 1995

Petitioner relies on our holding in Baldwin v. … See also Martin v.

Beldon v. Board of Parole

87 Or. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 1987

We write for the limited purpose of addressing petitioner’s contention that all five board members should have considered his case when, in fact, “only two board members of the board sat.” … Although a board rule provides that some types of cases must be heard by the full board, this case is not one of them. See OAR 255-30-015O). 1 Affirmed.

Morgan v. Board of Dentistry

118 Or. App. 626 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1993

In Van Gordon v. … In Spray v.

Valleur v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

43 Or. App. 843 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1979

This is a companion case to Valleur v. McGee, 42 Or App 391 , 600 P2d 914 (1979). … Cardwell v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 38 Or App 565, 571 , 590 P2d 787 (1979).

Themins v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board

54 Or. App. 901 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1981

ORCP 47C; Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 288 Or 659, 607 P2d 177 (1980); Seeborg v. General Motors Corp., 284 Or 695 , 588 P2d 1100 (1978). With respect to Dr. … Brown v. La Societe Francaise de Bienfaisance Mutuelle, 138 Cal 475, 71 P 516 (1903). However, the Brown formula is particularly unsatisfactory with respect to the salary requirement.

Malone v. Board of Parole

111 Or. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1992

Schwabe v. Workers' Compensation Board

101 Or. App. 645 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1990

Amfac, Inc. v. Garcia-Maciel, 98 Or App 88 , 778 P2d 967 (1989). … It is not clear from the Board’s order how it would treat the fee petition in the light of our ruling in Amfac, Inc. v. Garcia-Maciel, supra. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.